We should carefully heed the two reasons the Buddha does not declare 'There is no self': not because he recognizes a transcendent self of some kind (as some interpreters allege), or because he is cocerned only with delineating 'a strategy of perception' devoid of ontological implications (as others hold), but (i)because such a mode of expression was used by the annihilationists, and the Buddha wanted to avoid aligning his teaching with theirs; and (ii) because he wished to avoid causing confusion in those already attached to the idea of self. The Buddha declares that "all phenomena are nonself" (sabbe dhamma anatta), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since "all phenomena" includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self.

Chris wrote:With due respect, to obviate falling into misunderstanding ... of the two translators .... I'd go with Bhikkhu Bodhi everytime.

Based on my experiences with biblical translations, it's a mistake to ever assume that any translator is absolutely trustworthy... Not that I'm suggesting Bodhi is devious, only that he may have biases, stemming from his education, culture, personal background, sectarian affiliation, etc., which can subconsciously imprint itself on his rendering of the text. Not necessarily in blatantly incompetent ways (you said Bodhi is a good translator and I'm sure he is), but such bias can be reflected in more subtle, unintentional ways: such as the preference for a more literal translation over non-literal, or vice-versa. Without learning the language, the only way to really get a perfect picture of a translation's accuracy is to compare multiple translations, while referencing the original terms used in lexicons.

So, for now, I'd agree Bhikkhu Bodhi is probably more reliable, but in the future, if we have 8 different translations available online, there's nothing that would objectively make one more or less "authoritative".

"Udayin, if someone should recollect his manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births....thus, with their aspects and particulars, should he recollect his manifold past lives, then either he might ask me a question about the past or I might ask him a question about the past, and he might satisfy my mind with his answer to my question or I might satisfy his mind with my answer to his question. If someone with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, would see beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate...and understand how beings pass on according to their actions, then either he might ask me a question about the future or I might ask him a question about the future, and he might satisfy my mind with his answer to my question or I might satisfy his mind with my answer to his question. But let be the past, Udayin, let be the future. I shall teach you the Dhamma: When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this,that ceases."

With due respect, to obviate falling into misunderstanding ... of the two translators .... I'd go with Bhikkhu Bodhi everytime.

also normally I use the Bhikkhu Bodhi translations. However, it doesn't mean the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation are a revelation. One need apply his own effort to understanding. This passage shows how the individual recollect previous or future lives. And later the Tathagata teach "let the past and let the future, I shall teach you the Dhamma".

So the sense is pretty clear: previous lives and future lives are not the teaching of Dhamma, because the teaching of Dhamma is to get a cease and the end dukkha. Read again:

"let be the past, Udayin, let be the future. I shall teach you the Dhamma"

in this passage the recollection of lives is related with the individual. There is no difference in recollecting previous lives, previous weeks or previous years.

It is the real sense, I think. While one must be focused in the sense, then the other translation "Udāyi, it's from me, who recollect..." can be an starting point so satisfactory as "Udayin, if someone should recollect", or perhaps even better. Because the sense is that there is an individual recollecting past and future, while the teaching of Dhamma is not feeding the individual.

It would be nice knowing the pali words appearing in this phrase because maybe there is a third way still more satisfactory.

Hmmm ... I wonder who got that idea & how. I can't remember ever saying or writing such a thing, only that I've heard him talk w/ some people about the traditional understanding of rebirth, but that doesn't mean he believed. His attitude was more like "wait and see."

Best wishes.

: Greetings Santikaro

I have been reading on the internet of your advising people Buddhadasa believed in literal rebirth.

Hmmm ... I wonder who got that idea & how. I can't remember ever saying or writing such a thing, only that I've heard him talk w/ some people about the traditional understanding of rebirth, but that doesn't mean he believed. His attitude was more like "wait and see."

In other words, he did not deny it the way many of you Buddhadasa acolytes do. The sad thing, for all of Buddhadasa's interesting things he has to say, it the acolytes' zealous anti-rebirthism that makes him look really unpleasant, especially by the unpleasant behavior as we have seen here and are seeing elsewhre. (Craig, is exmpt from the unpleasant behaviour business, but not the zealous anti-rebirthism).

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

What an interesting passage! I want to pull out my copy of the MN and read the whole thing to understand better the context.

From what I see here, it appears the Buddha is saying, "Asking me a question about past lives when you yourself cannot see past lives will likely result in you being unsatisfied with any answer I give you. Likewise, asking me a question about the future when you yourself cannot see kamma will likely result in similar dissatisfaction. So don't ask me such questions." But then we have the Dog-Duty Sutta in which a person asks the Buddha about the future and the Buddha answers him (there are many such conversations in the sutta). Can we infer from this that person could see kamma? I would guess not. Specifically this person asked what would be the future course for one who does a certain practice. If he could have seen kamma for himself, I would think he could have answered his own question. I can think of two reasons for the discrepancy between these two suttas.

a] The specifics of the two people's question were different. One was worthy of answering and the other was not. I will check what MN 79 says and see if this reason checks out.

b] There was a difference between the two people. For one the question was worth answering and for the other it was not worth answering. Again, I would hope the suttas would shed some light on these two people as to their differing qualities. Perhaps the person in the Dog-Duty Sutta had some ability to see kamma but not enough to answer his own question?

Hmmm ... I wonder who got that idea & how. I can't remember ever saying or writing such a thing, only that I've heard him talk w/ some people about the traditional understanding of rebirth, but that doesn't mean he believed. His attitude was more like "wait and see."

In other words, he did not deny it the way many of you Buddhadasa acolytes do. The sad thing, for all of Buddhadasa's interesting things he has to say, it the acolytes' venomous anti-rebirthism that makes him look really ugly, especially by the ugly behavior as we have seen here and are seeing elsewhre. (Craig, is exmpt from the ugly behaviour business, but not the mono-mania of anti-rebirthism).

I dont deny rebirth, its a view point that i have let go of because of the dukkha thats there

If i denied it and said "there is no rebirth after death" then this is holding a view again

Buddhas way, as i understand it, goes beyond all views, opinions and standpoints

And how is there the yoke of views? There is the case where a certain person does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from views. When he does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from views, then — with regard to views — he is obsessed with view-passion, view-delight, view-attraction, view-infatuation, view-thirst, view-fever, view-fascination, view-craving. This is the yoke of sensuality, the yoke of becoming, & the yoke of views.

"Monks, there are these seven obsessions.1 Which seven?

"(1) The obsession of sensual passion.

"(2) The obsession of resistance.

"(3)The obsession of views.

"(4) The obsession of uncertainty.

"(5) The obsession of conceit.

"(6) The obsession of passion for becoming.

"(7) The obsession of ignorance.

"These are the seven obsessions."

(next sutta)

Monks, with the abandoning & destruction of the seven obsessions, the holy life is fulfilled. Which seven? The obsession of sensual passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming, the obsession of ignorance. With the abandoning & destruction of these seven obsessions, the holy life is fulfilled.

"When, for a monk, the obsession of sensual passion has been abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising; when, for him, the obsession of resistance... the obsession of views... the obsession of uncertainty... the obsession of conceit... the obsession of passion for becoming... the obsession of ignorance has been abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising: this is called a monk who has cut through craving, has turned away from the fetter, and — by rightly breaking through conceit — has put an end to suffering & stress."

metta

Last edited by clw_uk on Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Hmmm ... I wonder who got that idea & how. I can't remember ever saying or writing such a thing, only that I've heard him talk w/ some people about the traditional understanding of rebirth, but that doesn't mean he believed. His attitude was more like "wait and see."

In other words, he did not deny it the way many of you Buddhadasa acolytes do. The sad thing, for all of Buddhadasa's interesting things he has to say, it the acolytes' venomous anti-rebirthism that makes him look really ugly, especially by the ugly behavior as we have seen here and are seeing elsewhre. (Craig, is exmpt from the ugly behaviour business, but not the mono-mania of anti-rebirthism).

I dont deny rebirth, its a view point that i have let go of because of the dukkha thats there

But then you do go on and on and on and on and on to try to prove that your point of view is the truly true correct way to understand the Dhamma. Who are you trying to convince? I

If i denied it and said "there is no rebirth after death" then this is holding a view again

You are still holding a view about rebirth, of which you are trying to convince others by your repeated "argumentation" here.

Buddhas way, as i understand it, goes beyond all views, opinions and standpoints

Sure, but you are still holding tons of views, and the Buddha used views to teach, and just because something is a view does not mean it is not true.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

But then you do go on and on and on and on and on to try to prove that your point of view is the truly true correct way to understand the Dhamma. Who are you trying to convince? I

At first i did yes but since my retreat i have calmed down in that respect, the postings on ZFI was just because i felt like giving my own opinion on it and sharing it (the rest was just in response to your good self )

You are still holding a view about rebirth, of which you are trying to convince others by your repeated "argumentation" here.

I dont have a view of rebirth or no rebirth, for myself personally i let that go, the view i have at the moment is just the Four Noble Truths (as well as some wordly political ones)

Sure, but you are still holding tons of views, and the Buddha used views to teach, and just because something is a view does not mean it is not true.

I agree, i still have lots connected with my communist days and yes he did use views to teach but as a raft and we should practice to let go of them not hold them

clw_uk wrote:I dont deny rebirth, its a view point that i have let go of because of the dukkha thats there

But then you do go on and on and on and on and on to try to prove that your point of view is the truly true correct way to understand the Dhamma. Who are you trying to convince? I

If i denied it and said "there is no rebirth after death" then this is holding a view again

You are still holding a view about rebirth, of which you are trying to convince others by your repeated "argumentation" here.

I think there's plenty of ugliness to go around, Tiltbillings, but one thing I have to add: Of the 62 wrong views of the Brahmajala Sutta, agnostic eel-wriggling (the refusal to take a clear position out of a refusal to admit ignorance) is one of them. And it is mentioned in the context of ascetics who made ambiguous remarks about rebirth & kamma, refusing to either affirm or deny them. Is that what's going on here? I can't say, but it's something worth considering. Not clinging to views doesn't equate with not putting forth any views at all: the latter is the definition of eel-wriggling. And when you think about it, if you can't say there is rebirth or isn't, or what rebirth is like or isn't like, then you don't really know anything about rebirth. Eel-wriggling agnosticism is meant to hide this.

And also, if any view of rebirth at all is dukkha (a view I'd say is extreme), how is it skillful to discuss rebirth in a thread such as this?

I think there's plenty of ugliness to go around, Tiltbillings, but one thing I have to add: Of the 62 wrong views of the Brahmajala Sutta, agnostic eel-wriggling (the refusal to take a clear position out of a refusal to admit ignorance) is one of them. And it is mentioned in the context of ascetics who made ambiguous remarks about rebirth & kamma, refusing to either affirm or deny them. Is that what's going on here? I can't say, but it's something worth considering. Not clinging to views doesn't equate with not putting forth any views at all: the latter is the definition of eel-wriggling. And when you think about it, if you can't say there is rebirth or isn't, or what rebirth is like or isn't like, then you don't really know anything about rebirth. Eel-wriggling agnosticism is meant to hide this

So by this understanding this follwing passage is "eel wriggling"

Because entrenchments1 in viewsaren't easily overcomewhen considering what's graspedamong doctrines, that's whya person embraces or rejects a doctrine — in light of these very entrenchments.

Now, one who is cleansed2 has no preconceived viewabout states of becoming or not- anywhere in the world.Having abandoned conceit3 & illusion,by what means would he go?4 He isn't involved.

For one who's involved gets into disputes over doctrines,but how — in connection with what — 5would you arguewith one uninvolved?He has nothingembraced or rejected,6has sloughed off every view right here — every one.

and the practice of leaving behind views is eel wriggling so this sutta is wrong practice

"Monks, with the abandoning & destruction of the seven obsessions, the holy life is fulfilled. Which seven? The obsession of sensual passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming, the obsession of ignorance. With the abandoning & destruction of these seven obsessions, the holy life is fulfilled.

"When, for a monk, the obsession of sensual passion has been abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising; when, for him, the obsession of resistance... the obsession of views... the obsession of uncertainty... the obsession of conceit... the obsession of passion for becoming... the obsession of ignorance has been abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising: this is called a monk who has cut through craving, has turned away from the fetter, and — by rightly breaking through conceit — has put an end to suffering & stress."

and this sutta

Monks, there are these seven obsessions.1 Which seven?

"(1) The obsession of sensual passion.

"(2) The obsession of resistance.

"(3) The obsession of views.

"(4) The obsession of uncertainty.

"(5) The obsession of conceit.

"(6) The obsession of passion for becoming.

"(7) The obsession of ignorance.

"These are the seven obsessions."

the "eel wriggler" position is one that from the outset doesnt take a view about anything at all and gets paralyzed

The Buddha taught views yes, he taught views that are wholesome and leads to wholesome states however he also taught that the teachings are like a raft, so even the views must be left behind

As i understand it views are to be used and then let go of

In relation to myself i dont "eel wriggle" to deny ignorance. There are views here and there is still ignorance here, however (as i understand it) one should work to progressively let go of the grip on views one by one, same with clinging to anything else

metta

Last edited by clw_uk on Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Because entrenchments1 in viewsaren't easily overcomewhen considering what's graspedamong doctrines, that's whya person embraces or rejects a doctrine — in light of these very entrenchments.

Now, one who is cleansed2 has no preconceived viewabout states of becoming or not- anywhere in the world.Having abandoned conceit3 & illusion,by what means would he go?4 He isn't involved.

For one who's involved gets into disputes over doctrines,but how — in connection with what — 5would you arguewith one uninvolved?He has nothingembraced or rejected,6has sloughed off every view right here — every one.

So, you are now publicly claiming at least being of streamwinner status?

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.